THICKNESS OF WEBEE CONGLOMERATE. I 7 1) 



thu hi<;-lily iiuliiii'd Iwds of the ridge. It seems ],)n)l)iil)le tliiit tliey are 

 identical with tlie shales observed uuderlyin<i' the liiuestones in tlie expos- 

 ures north of Pinto Peak. On Carbon Ridge the beds exhibit much the 

 same seijuence of sediments as are found in the Spring Hill region, 

 the limestones being more <)r less siliceous and carrying interbeddcd con- 

 glomerates. ( )ii tile sunnnit of the ridge there is a considerable develop- 

 ment of tliinh Ix'ilded calcareous shales, in places fossiliferous. Unlike 

 this horizon at S])ring Hill, al)uiidant structural evidence exists here to 

 show that the uppermost members of the liower Coal-measiu-e series are rej)- 

 resented, as the Weber conglomerates overlie them conformably. Between 

 the beds of the two epochs a jx-culiar structural fcarure may be noticed in 

 the naiTow ravines which have been worn out l)y erosion along the contact 

 of the limestones and conglomerates. These ravines, whicli start in with 

 approximatelv north and south trends, invariablv curve to tlie east and cross 

 the conglomerates at right angles to their strike, breaking up the formation 

 into individual lilocks, which are united to the main body of Carbon Kidge 

 l)v low, connecting saddU's of conglomerate. 



Everywhere the conglomerate is seen to overlie the limestone eouform- 

 ablv. Estimating from the oliserved di])s and strikes, the Lower Coal- 

 measures of Carbon Ividge show a tliickne.ss of 3,r){l() feet, which does not 

 \arv essentially from the development found on Springs Hill and is within 

 the measurement olitained for the horizon in the Diamond Hange, where the 

 structural relationsliips with lioth the upper and lower beds are much lietter 

 ch'termined. The Weber conglomerate has been regarded as dipping 

 uniformly, throughout the entire development, at 70°, and upon this assump- 

 tion is assigned a tliickiiess of 1,1100 feet. This allows tlic conglomerate 

 100 feet less than the estimated thickness in the Diamond Range, but 

 here the uppermost l)eds are known to be btiried beneath a greater 

 or less accuimdatioii of tutfs and jmmices. That there is alxitit 

 the same thickness of ])eds and great similarity in tlie nature (.f 

 the sedimentation, is evident from a comparative study of the two 

 regions. No specialh' favorable locality for the collection of fossils was 

 recognized in the limestones, mainly l)ecause none were sought, luit througl- 

 out the entire series of l)eds Coal-measure fonns may be fomid. Such 



